I feel the need to go to the forums to understand exactly what an album’s title is, in the case I listed this i could not find any relevant threads in the forum already :
Status Quo – Live! (Live+At+The+Glasgow+Apollo+27+28+29+October+1976) – Box Set (Deluxe Edition): 8 x CD, 2025 Status Quo - Live! | Discogs
I listed it as “Live!” Which is how it appears on the front cover, hype sticker discs and on the website of the manufacturer https://www.demonmusicgroup.co.uk/catalogue/releases/status-quo-live-8cd/
As well as every web store selling it.
One is insisting it should read “Live! (Live+At+The+Glasgow+Apollo+27+28+29+October+1976)” because it appears on the sop of the slip case in small letters.
Because of
3.1.3. Sometimes the title is written in a different way on the cover than on the spine or other places. It is best to use the title on the cover, but also consider what is going to be most useful to other s, so the most complete title is better no matter where it appears. In rare cases, it may be necessary to make up a compound title from the various versions of the title on the cover, spine, label, etc.
While I believe that it should be as it appears on the front cover Discsa marketing material etc. and that
3.1.6. Do not transcribe words that serve as an introduction and are not intended to be part of the title
Applies.
Guidance from the masses is appreciated:
"(Live+At+The+Glasgow+Apollo+27+28+29+October+1976)" is not part of the title.
Most of the rest of the relase only has "Live!" written on it. Including the front once what appears to be hype sticker, is removed. Maybe that's the slipcase? Either way... the title is "Live!"
Well I normally use the title of an album as written on the cover (which normally corresponds to one on the spine.)
In some circumstances the title from an artist may be duplicated from a previous release title (as I feel in this case - Live!) My own personal view would be to add as much to the title from the copy in hand, this would then distinguish it from similar releases. Again that's only my opinion! :-)
Adding pieces to the title "to distinquish it" is not the way to go about. There are plenty of other factors that distinguish a release. The title is almost never it. that's literally the worst way and worst reason.
For clarity I added, "Live! (Live+At+The+Glasgow+Apollo+27+28+29+October+1976)" to the notes to acknowledge its existence in a remote part of the the packaging. which I believe is teh correct thing to do.
cellularsmoke
Adding pieces to the title "to distinquish it" is not the way to go about. There are plenty of other factors that distinguish a release. The title is almost never it. that's literally the worst way and worst reason.
Welshquofan
Well I normally use the title of an album as written on the cover (which normally corresponds to one on the spine.)
In some circumstances the title from an artist may be duplicated from a previous release title (as I feel in this case - Live!) My own personal view would be to add as much to the title from the copy in hand, this would then distinguish it from similar releases. Again that's only my opinion! :-)
Another distinguishing feature of this release is the "Live!" rather than "Live" which appears on the other listings (Though I am not sure as it looks like it appears on them and should be there a possible Mass edit for another day)
A little background: The live album itself has been released countless times under the title "Live" or "Live!" or "Status Quo Live!". It was pieced together from various concerts over a 3-night run.
This is not just that album, it also includes the entirety of the 3-night run, released for the first time. Hence the use of an extended title on the outside of the packaging - the only printed spine - which distinguishes it from previous releases.
A 2LP release of the first night in its entirety was released for RSD 2025 under the extended title of Status Quo - Live! Glasgow+Apollo+27+October+1976. The extended title of the 8CD set as part of the same project is in keeping with that specific, distinguishing title.
3.1.3 "the most complete title is better no matter where it appears. In rare cases, it may be necessary to make up a compound title from the various versions of the title on the cover, spine, label, etc" clearly applies.
And THEN, in addition to using the full main title, wherever it may appear, we can "Use the Release Notes field to mention any important differences."
cellularsmoke
Adding pieces to the title "to distinquish it" is not the way to go about. There are plenty of other factors that distinguish a release. The title is almost never it. that's literally the worst way and worst reason.
That's literally the opposite of what 3.1.3 specifies.
"the most complete title is better no matter where it appears. In rare cases, it may be necessary to make up a compound title from the various versions of the title on the cover, spine, label, etc. "
This is definitely on the line for me. Considering that subtitle is only shown on the spine, I would lean towards not including it in the title, but putting it in the notes as you've done. So +1 to not having that part of the title.
Just as a point of clarification, while this is useful to reference, external sources have very little weight to what we decide to put for the title. If the release is consistent with a full name plus subtitle, we should add it like that here, even if colloquially it's referred to as something else externally. Maybe the big example of this is The White Album. There may be some versions out there that use that wording on the release itself, but for Discogs purposes we add it as The Beatles - The Beatles.
3.1.4. Subtitles should be entered into the title field. If the release doesn't have its own separators, please use parentheses. Example: Title (Subtitle). If there is doubt as to whether text on the release is a subtitle or not, try referring to other releases or the artist or label websites.
Referring to other releases, hype sticker, adverts etc, "Live!" is the main title. The rest is a subtitle specific to this extended release. Subtitles should be entered into the main title field ^
4500x
3.1.4. Subtitles should be entered into the title field. If the release doesn't have its own separators, please use parentheses. Example: Title (Subtitle). If there is doubt as to whether text on the release is a subtitle or not, try referring to other releases or the artist or label websites.
Referring to other releases, hype sticker, adverts etc, "Live!" is the main title. The rest is a subtitle specific to this extended release. Subtitles should be entered into the main title field ^
I really don't see it as a subtitle, as i have been at pains to point out. Every source for this release has it as 'Live!' The one place it appears is in a small font relegated to a not obvious part of the cover which on a shelf you will not even see unless you place it sideways.
You appear so far to be the only person who sees this as right.
Any way if there is any doubt take it to teh boards which i have done.
4500x
3.1.4. Subtitles should be entered into the title field. If the release doesn't have its own separators, please use parentheses. Example: Title (Subtitle). If there is doubt as to whether text on the release is a subtitle or not, try referring to other releases or the artist or label websites.
Referring to other releases, hype sticker, adverts etc, "Live!" is the main title. The rest is a subtitle specific to this extended release. Subtitles should be entered into the main title field ^
I really don't see it as a subtitle, as i have been at pains to point out. Every source for this release has it as 'Live!' The one place it appears is in a small font relegated to a not obvious part of the cover which on a shelf you will not even see unless you place it sideways.
You appear so far to be the only person who sees this as right.
Any way if there is any doubt take it to teh boards which i have done.
I really don't see it as a subtitle, as i have been at pains to point out. Every source for this release has it as 'Live!' The one place it appears is in a small font relegated to a not obvious part of the cover which on a shelf you will not even see unless you place it sideways.
You appear so far to be the only person who sees this as right.
No matter how you see it, it appears on the release itself - which is what Discogs documents - and the rules as quoted specifically allow it, meaning there is no legitimacy in removing it.
As baldorr and I have already advised, external sources are largely irrelevant.
And I'm not "the only person who sees this as right" - Welshquofan is in agreement.
I'd just keep it at: Status Quo – Live!
Looking at the complete release, it says everywhere this. (Or "+Live!" on the discs)
"(Live+At+The+Glasgow+Apollo+27+28+29+October+1976)" just looks like a description to me, if it would be included as a subtitle, leave away all those "+", they are representing spaces.
On the hype sticker it's just "Live In Glasgow 27 28 29 October 1976"
Not anything that appears on the front or spine should be regarded a title or subtitle.
4500x
rusinurbe
I really don't see it as a subtitle, as i have been at pains to point out. Every source for this release has it as 'Live!' The one place it appears is in a small font relegated to a not obvious part of the cover which on a shelf you will not even see unless you place it sideways.
You appear so far to be the only person who sees this as right.
No matter how you see it, it appears on the release itself - which is what Discogs documents - and the rules as quoted specifically allow it, meaning there is no legitimacy in removing it.
As baldorr and I have already advised, external sources are largely irrelevant.
And I'm not "the only person who sees this as right" - Welshquofan is in agreement.
External Sources can be relevant as long as they are quoted in teh notes.
It was in effect a demonstration that the title of this release is "Live!" everywhere.
This includes the front cover, The hype sticker and on the discs.
Dr.SultanAszazin
"(Live+At+The+Glasgow+Apollo+27+28+29+October+1976)" just looks like a description to me, if it would be included as a subtitle, leave away all those "+", they are representing spaces.
On the hype sticker it's just "Live In Glasgow 27 28 29 October 1976"
agree this is a description not a subtitle.
cellularsmoke
Adding pieces to the title "to distinquish it" is not the way to go about. There are plenty of other factors that distinguish a release. The title is almost never it. that's literally the worst way and worst reason.
Totally agree for a start there are relevant distinguishers the number of discs and box set Format tags.
IMO, it should be Live! without any subtitle information. If the subtitle appeared in more (and more prominent) places on the packaging/labeling, that would be one thing, but it shows up in only one location, somewhat ambiguously. Everywhere else (hype sticker, front cover, disc labels, etc.) that note is omitted. (For comparison, consider Status Quo - Live! Glasgow+Apollo+27+October+1976 which has the show information prominently featured in multiple locations.)
If the subtitle were used, the plus signs should DEFINITELY be replaced by spaces. But I really don't think the long "subtitle" should be included in the name at all. Put it in the notes, but not in the title.
